There are many motives for controlling the movement of certain materials. Perhaps most prominently, where characteristics of the material inherently (either of themselves, or when combined with other readily available materials) present serious hazards to health, property or the environment, government agencies will ordinarily takes steps to regulate and monitor its transportation. Common examples of such “hazardous materials” include toxins, incendiaries and explosives. The term “controlled material” is used generically herein to refer to hazardous materials, as well as other materials subject to restrictions on their movement.
A simplified movement of gasoline would be illustrative of the procedures currently in place to control and track hazardous material movements. A gas station (the “destination”) orders a certain volume of gasoline be delivered from a distributor (the “marketer”). Having agreed to fill the order, the marketer contacts the appropriate government regulator to obtain approval for the desired movement of gasoline. Provided the regulator approves the movement, authorization is granted.
The marketer contracts with a truck operator (the “carrier”) to pick up the gasoline from a fuel depot (the “origin”). A bill of lading (“BOL”) is generated when the carrier picks up the gasoline. The BOL lists factual information about the shipment, such as the type and amount of product loaded, the date and time of the loading, origin and carrier information, and may indicate other information, such as the intended destination (at least in general terms).
The carrier transports the gasoline to the destination. The gasoline is unloaded at the destination, and delivery ticket is generated confirming the delivery. Reconciliation between the BOL and the delivery ticket is generally a precursor to completing the various payments between parties for the movement. For example, the marketer ordinarily paid the origin in order to get the gasoline released. The BOL allows verification that the amount of fuel paid for was actually received by the carrier. The delivery ticket allows verification that the purchased and loaded fuel was delivered to the destination. With such verification, the marketer bills the destination and pays the carrier.
While the foregoing example shows the parties usually involved in a controlled material movement (although in some movements, the parties are not necessarily distinct business entities—e.g., the marketer, carrier and destination could all be commonly owned) and illustrates the general thrust of the movement (i.e., getting permission, actually moving the material from point A to point B and verifying its delivery), actual controlled material movements can be significantly more complex. For example, it is common for a carrier to deliver to multiple destinations, meaning that multiple delivery tickets would need to be reconciled to account for the entirety of a given load. Additionally, due to changing real world circumstances, errors, etc., the intended destination(s) will often change after the carrier leaves the origin with the controlled material.
These added complexities will make the logistics of the movement more complicated for the parties involved, especially the marketer. However, even with relatively simply movements, the sheer number of controlled materials movements undertaken on a daily basis can quickly overwhelm the government agency(ies) tasked with overseeing the movement for safety and/or revenue purposes. In the case of the U.S., and many other jurisdictions, there are simply not enough personnel and resources to check on even a tenth of the movements of controlled materials occurring at a given moment. Thus, potential irregularities in a movement will often not come to the attention of the government authorities until well after the time for effective intervention. Even with the more widespread use of tracking technologies that potentially allow the real-time monitoring of all vehicles engaged in controlled material movements, the mere availability of such data, of itself, complicates rather than simplifies the regulatory and enforcement challenges faced by government authorities.